IN THE MATTER of an application for the discharge or modification of a restriction arising under a covenant in a transfer of land registered no. 2327741 and arising under a covenant in a transfer of land registered no. 2420525 affecting the land at 26-28 Dellas Avenue, Templestowe, Victoria, being the land in Certificate of Title Volume 08216 Folio 026 by:

VAUGHAN AARON RANDELL and ORS

(according to the schedule attached)

Plaintiffs

FREDERICK WALTER UHL and ORS

(according to the schedule attached)

Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Derham AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 July 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 October 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Randell v Uhl
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 668

---

PROPERTY – Restrictive covenant – Application to modify restrictions in covenant pursuant to the Property Law Act1958 (Vic), s 84 – Whether plan of subdivision is the subject of a building scheme – Whether notice of building scheme sufficient – Modification of covenant to allow not more than two dwelling houses – Whether discharge or modification will not substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit – Application granted – Applicable legal principles – Property Law Act1958, s 84(1)(c).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M Townsend	MPW Lawyers
For the Defendant	Mr I Munt	Best Hooper Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1

Summary of conclusions........................................................................................................................... 2

The covenants.......................................................................................................................................... 2

Head Title................................................................................................................................................. 5

Order of transfer out of Head Title............................................................................................................ 7

The Land and its location........................................................................................................................ 12

Plaintiff’s evidence................................................................................................................................. 15

Plaintiffs’ proposed development............................................................................................................ 18

Defendants evidence.............................................................................................................................. 19

Burden of the Covenants......................................................................................................................... 25

Benefit of the Covenants......................................................................................................................... 25

Building Scheme..................................................................................................................................... 27

Title derived from a common vendor.................................................................................................. 30
Estate laid out before sale intending to impose the restriction on all lots............................................. 30
The restrictions were intended for all lots........................................................................................... 33
Lots purchased on footing that restrictions would apply to all lots....................................................... 34
Defined area..................................................................................................................................... 36
The notice requirement..................................................................................................................... 36

The application to modify the Covenants................................................................................................. 42

Substantial injury.................................................................................................................................... 45

Plaintiffs’ submissions....................................................................................................................... 45
Defendants’ submissions................................................................................................................... 48

Consideration......................................................................................................................................... 53

Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................. 59

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the land at 26-28 Dellas Avenue, Templestowe, Victoria (Land).[1] The title to the Land is encumbered with two restrictive covenants that, amongst other restrictions, prevents the erection of more than one dwelling house on the Land. The plaintiff has applied to the Court pursuant to s 84(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) (PLA) to modify the Covenants affecting the Land to the allow the erection of two dwellings on the Land.
[1]The land more specifically described in Certificate of Title Volume 8216 Folio 026.

There are two covenants encumbering (burdening) the Land because the Land is comprised of the whole of Lot 13 on plan of subdivision…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Randell v Uhl

Details

AGLC: Randell v Uhl [2019] VSC 668
Case: [2019] VSC 668
Decision Date: 3 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Randell v Uhl was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, Randell, sought to modify a restrictive covenant on a property to allow for the construction of a second dwelling. The covenant, which originally restricted the property to a single dwelling, was part of a larger subdivision plan. Uhl, the respondent, opposed the modification on the basis that it would contravene the terms of the covenant and potentially harm the property's value.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plan of subdivision was subject to a building scheme, whether the notice of the building scheme was adequate, and whether modifying the covenant to permit two dwellings would not substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the covenant. The court had to interpret the relevant provisions of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) and determine if the proposed modification met the statutory criteria for alteration.

The court found that the plan of subdivision did indeed constitute a building scheme, and the notice provided was sufficient. Furthermore, it was determined that modifying the covenant to allow for two dwellings would not substantially injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the covenant, considering the nature of the subdivision and the expectations of the original covenantors. The court applied the statutory criteria under section 84(1)(c) of the Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) and concluded that the application met the necessary conditions for modification. Consequently, the court granted the application to modify the restrictive covenant.

The court ordered that the restrictive covenant be modified to allow for the construction of not more than two dwelling houses on the property in question. This decision allows Randell to proceed with the development of a second dwelling, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the modified covenant. The ruling ensures that the interests of all parties, including Uhl, are balanced in accordance with the statutory framework and the principles of property law.

Orders